Child Welfare Authorities Smacked Down by Court

(Mill Valley, California) Here's a case where child welfare officials were found by a federal court to have overstepped their authority. A Mill Valley woman named Gimmi Rhoads-Haro was arrested for child endangerment and child cruelty after social workers determined that the home Rhoads-Haro provided for her two children was unfit for habitation.

Rhoads-Haro pleaded guilty and received a jail sentence. Meanwhile, Marin County authorities seized the children and later adopted them out. The custody decision was appealed in federal court by the mother, identified in court documents as G.R., claiming the children were part Apache Indian and, therefore, the tribal council is required to be party to any custody rulings. Marin authorities decided that the children were not part Apache and never contacted the Apache tribe, who alone determines membership.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco ruled that Marin County authorities had violated the federal Indian Child Welfare Act when the children were seized.

Under the law, federally recognized Indian tribes must be notified when their juvenile ancestors are involved in custody disputes. The law was enacted in 1978 to protect tribal children from being seized simply because local authorities did not approve of their parents' native child-rearing practices.

G.R. is not of Indian descent, but the noncustodial biological father of the children, identified as "Richard H.", had an adoptive father who was one-quarter Apache. Thus, G.R. argued, Marin authorities were legally required to notify the Apache tribe, but decided Richard H. was not an Apache because he was adopted.

The question before the state appeals court was whether it was the county's job to decide whether Richard H. had Apache ancestry, or whether tribal officials should have been allowed to decide.

On Thursday, a three-judge panel unanimously ruled in G.R.'s favor, saying the county improperly took it upon themselves to determine whether Richard H. and his biological children had tribal standing.

"According to Mother, a determination of the minors' membership status in a tribe is not for the state court or a social worker to make as a matter of law under the ICWA," the ruling said. "We agree with Mother's position."

The ruling "conditionally" reverses the county's termination of parental rights for G.R., pending proper notification of the Apache tribe. If the juvenile court then determines the children are Apaches, they must adhere to the Indian Child Welfare Act in deciding custody.

If the children are deemed non-Apache, then the state appellate court will allow the termination of G.R.'s parental rights.

G.R.'s court-appointed lawyer, Caroline Todd, said the ruling was "excellent."

"This is what the Indian Child Welfare Act was meant to do," Todd said. "Only the tribe can determine who's a member. It was a mistake to look simply at biology. It's not the social service agency or the court that determines that; it's the tribe."

Heh.